Memorandum submitted by Professor Ian
Davis, Cranfield Disaster Management Centre
1. Observations on Disaster Preparedness and
Mitigation Strategies
Figure 1
THE RISK REDUCTION CHAIN
Firstly, I would value the opportunity to briefly
discuss with the committee the broad focus of National Disaster
Risk Reduction Strategies, as these must develop in coming years
to cope with the expanding threats from disasters. The "Chain
Model" provides a useful representation as a basis for discussion
concerning some difficult questions:
What can "we" in the UK Disaster Community
(ie DFID/ DEFRA/ NGO's / Academic Researchers, Trainers and Educators
/ Private Sector / Advisory Committee on Natural Disaster Reduction)
do to actively support:
— full integration and coordination
of the disparate elements in this "risk reduction chain"
or is this an unrealistic quest given the scale and complexity
of such a task?
— creative ways for developing countries
to effectively synchronise poverty reduction and risk reduction
strategies;
— developing countries, as they seek
to decide which of the elements in "protection chain"
should be given priority attention?
— the development of relevant and realistic
links between national disaster risk reduction strategies, or
systems and the better established and much better funded
national disaster response structures or systems;
— capacity building within developing
countries to reduce their vulnerability to extreme natural hazards;
— radical improvements and the urgent
expansion of in risk assessment methodologies to underpin the
development of risk reduction measures. Particular attention needs
to be devoted to the development of Vulnerability Assessments:
(Social/Physical/Economic and Environmental). In addition work
is needed to develop "Loss Estimation" to enable societies
to be able to calculate potential losses in order to justify the
costs of mitigation.
2. Evidence concerning the progressive development
of sustainable "National Safety Cultures"
Secondly, I would value the opportunity to develop
the Risk Reduction emphasis further by discussing the development
of sustainable National Safety Cultures on the lines of the following
model:
Figure 2
THE STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SAFETY
CULTURE
Four stages can be identified on the diagram
above:
— Stage 1 Rudimentary Level
(where risk reduction is still at
the level of Political Rhetoric)
(where risk reduction is still at
the level of Logical Argument)
— Stage 3 Developed Level
(where risk reduction has been codified
in Laws and Codes)
(where an overall, well-integrated
Seismic Safety Culture is in place).
What can the UK Disaster Community, as noted
above, do to actively support:
— highly disaster-prone countries to
move from "rudimentary levels" of risk reduction in
the direction of more advanced levels?
— the development of "Human Resource
Development" (HRD) as critical elements in sustainable structures,
strategies and systems to reduce risks;
— creative, and sustainable partnerships
between public and private sectors, perhaps on the lines of the
US development of "safe communities" in FEMA's "Project
Impact", the innovative public links to insurance companies
by using the incentives of reduced insurance premia to create
safer conditions;
— far better ways to absorb, or diffuse
disaster risk reduction so that it is not isolated from all line
ministries and everyday life;
— the political process as a key element
in the creation and maintenance of public safety.
Recommendations for the Committee to consider:
1. That the "Advisory Committee on
Natural Disaster Reduction" is charged with the creation
of an inter-disciplinary, multi-hazard and multi-sectoral "task
force". This would be asked to work in a creative partnership
with DFID staff to develop a series of benchmarks and performance
targets for the development of workable and realistic National
Risk Reduction Strategies and Systems. The aim would be to develop
strategies for risk reduction that support and interact with poverty
reduction initiatives. This work would then need to be developed
in close consultation with relevant UN Agencies in order to be
applied by disaster-prone countries with the active support of
DFID.
2. That DFID provide a clearly defined and
well resourced National Focal Point in the Risk Reduction field,
in order to:
— enable more focused, and better coordinated
work to be undertaken by the broad community of UK groups working
in this field;
— assist in productive dialogue between
these groups and government;
— link to the broadening UN commitment
in this field;
— provide an easy access point for
disaster risk reduction officials within developing countries
to gain access to UK based resources in NGO's, Private Sector
and in Universities. (This would link to the work of all DFID
regional offices); and
— provide a technical link for DFID
staff in their regional offices, as well as geographical desks,
to gain useful risk reduction information and human resources
to assist them in advising country officials in their respective
areas.
Professor Ian Davis
Cranfield Disaster Management Centre (CDMC)
Cranfield University
February 2002
|
